Imminent Domain: the Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration

It has been a long held secret of mine that the phrase “Kingdom of God” held the greatest enigma in the Gospels for me as a teenager. When the Gospels compare the Kingdom of God to mustard seeds or to farmers, and when Jesus said that some of his disciples would not die before they saw the Kingdom of God arrive or when he said that we have to receive the Kingdom of God like little children; my young head began to split with confusion.

What is the Kingdom of God? Where is the Kingdom of God? Even when is the Kingdom of God? Is it future, is it present? Is it only for a thousand years when Christ returns or was it in the midst of the Pharisees when Jesus was casting out demons? It is to these questions and the practical applications of them that Ben Witherington III takes up his pen.

In Imminent Domain: the Story of the Kingdom of God and its Celebration, Witherington exposes my preconceptions which were a barrier to understanding the biblical phrase “Kingdom of God”; he says, “To most modern people the term ‘Kingdom’ always implies a place, whether one is thinking of the United Kingdom or the Magic Kingdom.” (p.2) To this he teaches that the word “Kingdom” in the scriptures refers both to a place and an event or condition. So this means that when the words “Kingdom” and “God” are joined together they are usually used to convey the idea of the rule or activity of God leading to the consummation of his will. For this reason he prefers the term “Dominion” over Kingdom, “God exercises or has dominion over us and we are in turn ruled by God” (ibid). To this we can say that the Kingdom of God is here already as Jesus told the Pharisees, and that it is still to come or rather that it is "Already, but Not Yet".

After diverging into a short discussion distinguishing between the Kingdom of God with Israel and the Church he sets about the rest of the book illustrating how and what it means to live out the Dominion of God here already, and the implications of those actions for the Not Yet – or future reality of the Kingdom. The Dominion of God is manifest in the miracles of Jesus and his disciples (p.3), and the Dominion of God is manifest in godly character and living (“When God’s character is reflected in our character in our daily lives, then the dominion of God is evident here on earth”, p.17). But when we get right down and personal on the subject of the Kingdom he says, “Godly character rather than goodly gifts and talents is a better indicator of whether God is ruling in a persons life or not” (p.40). As far as the future consummation of the Kingdom is concerned, it is not ‘out there’ somewhere, but rather it will be here on earth: “It is never adequate theology to say ‘this world is not my home, I’m just passing through’ as if heaven were all that really mattered” (p.53), heaven is not our home, but only the place where we pass between when we die and when we rise again. What this means is that in a very real way “Believers are God’s beachhead on earth” (p.55). For this reason Christians should follow God’s lead in maintaining this planet, “God is the ultimate conservationist or ecologist” (p.74).

Witherington maintains a certain amount of (deliberate?) ambiguity throughout his book. At times he seems almost Covenantal and then when you least expect it he says something like “non-Christian Jews will in some inevitable way be included in the final form of God’s people.” (p.64) – this is staple Dispensational thinking. Furthermore he avoids all discussion revolving around the Millennium. It seems to me that Witherington’s intention is more pastorial then academic and so perhaps his ambiguity in these matters is with the hope to reach as wide an audience as possible.

I give this book 3.5 out of 5. The introduction is very helpful and only mildly detached from the rest. I would have liked Ben to explore deeper into the distinctions of the Kingdom of Israel (with their prophetic expectations of the Messiah and the Kingdom he would bring) with the concept of the Kingdom of God which Witherington develops. It’s a light read and one could make good use of it in a sermon.

Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com

God's Battalions: the Case for the Crusades

“A Respected and Controversial Scholar Argues that the Crusades Were a Justified War Waged Against Muslim Terror and Aggression” – Back of the Book

I had not read much on the crusades, but I certainly had many ideas about them which I probably acquired via the influence of our culture. But as soon as the advanced copy of Starks book came across my path I read it in two days flat! First let me present my stereotype; secondly, let me present Starks thesis.

In the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves I remember a comical scene where the Christian Crusader, Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) and his Muslim friend Azeem (Morgan Freeman) are looking over the hill at the enemy forces. While Robin is squinting his eyes to see the distance, Azeem quickly creates a telescope using makeshift materials and hands it to Robin who, when peering through, scrambles for his sword and starts swinging it through the air like a maniac thinking that the enemy is upon him. Azeem hangs his head in disbelief and comments, “how did your kind ever take back Jerusalem”. The message of course is that Azeem the Muslim is advanced his sophisticated while the great Christian Robin Hood is barbaric and uncivilized. This theme comes out often in the film and plays directly into a typical stereotype.

Shortly after 9/11 former president Bill Clinton said, “those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless”, referring back to the Crusades; and everyone from the Catholic Pope – John Paul II – to Protestant march rallies are tripping over themselves apologizing for the Crusades. Why? Because in them we see the worst of Christendom: Barbaric and uncivilized Christians marching with sword in hand in the name of Christ slaughtering civilized, sophisticated and innocent Muslims for the purpose colonization and greed.

But is this portrayal of history accurate? Rodney Stark says ‘No’. It is easy (perhaps too easy) to demonize the Catholic Church of that era for the Crusades having existed and to jump quickly (too quickly) into hypothesis involving perceived motives and half truth stories about specific events. But when those events are placed in their context then clarity becomes 20/20 and humility is had! God’s Battalions is a highly readable and well researched case for the Crusades: that contrary to popular opinion “the Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims.” (p.248) On the contrary, “the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places” (p.8) until Europe finally said "Enough is enough". In other words, the Crusades were an answer to a plea for help by the Christian East who were being brutalized, slaughtered or forced to convert. Someone had to come to the rescue, and someone did. Consider this, had Constantinople been taken by the Muslims “the way would have been open to invading Europe” (p.36) and historians see Constantinople’s withstanding of the Muslim forces as no less than a “turning point in the history of mankind” (p.37 italics added) because, “Had they captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe – and America – might be Muslim today” (ibid). So it appears we might owe more to the crusaders then we typically pay them due.

All in all I give this book 4.5 out of 5; it is an excellent read and I suggest anyone interested in the subject to pick it up as soon as it comes out (October 2009 - all page references are subject to change as I was using an uncorrected proof and not the final product).

Derek Ouellette
ouellettedd@hotmail.com